Assessment of EoI:356



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 356 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: Note in Introduction Kenya not listed as drylands, and Turkana is not the east Africa coast, So I put Turkana as part of Ethiopia

Lake Turkana is an IBA, and there is much dryland terrestrial BD of importance - though no charismatic megafauna. Often such drylands are not given the BD, Ecosystem importance they deserve and a greater focus is placed on tropical. I hope this initiative will balance that as what % of terrestrial globe = dry!!!

Evidence B:The proposed area is a UNESCO’s “important birdlife area” for being home to over 350 native and migratory birth species. It also host the largest remaining nile crocodile populations and a breading ground for venomous snakes.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Most of C2 is below ground and really not measured. Above ground C2 usually low per unit area, but because of scale can be very important (esp roots of perrennial grasses)

Evidence B:The EOI contain no data on the area’s potential for climate mitigation. It instead aptly describes how the area is likely to be affected.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: For the most part Turkana (and the lake) is de facto IPLC managed even though this is often not recognized by Gov. Indeed there is a draft Forest Policy for Turkana which is based on Turkana ITK and Institutions - which was developed in the 1980s and is still used!

Evidence B:Evidence abound from the EOI that the proposed area is fully governed by IPLC. However the EOI also indicates that there are management units.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: Well described - but would be good to emphasize the importance of Turkana ITK and institutions for natural resource management

Evidence B:The area’s cultural significance is based on being a gate way the introduction of livestock into the sub-saharan Africa. No more information (e.g of sacred sites) is given hence making it vague.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: Oil, Charcoal, invasives (Prosopis), Refugees (Kakuma), lack of respect if IPLC landscapes; Dams (Ethiopia about which not much can be done

Evidence B:The area’s threats enumerated in the EOI include dam construction leading to biodiversity loss. Others are tribal conflicts and and climate change. Combined, these threats put IPLC and biodiversity at risk absent agent actions.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Turkana county recognizes importance of IPLCs but this needs to be demonstrated in current policy contexts at county levels. Most of the senior county government officers are Turkana and would be supportive

Evidence B:As convincingly reflected in the EOI, Kenyan legal and policy frameworks actively promote recognition of IPLC governance.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: de facto support. Now a number of Community Forest Area (CFAs) of Natural forest based in Turkana (esp to West) on IPLC management are recognized as part of larger NRM sysems

Evidence B:It is evident that the national government supports IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation. This is clear from the listed projects co-supported with international organizations.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: CFAs as mentioned in 7) above. The principle of respecting the large scale IPLC natural resource management systems would help enhance conservation and land use. National policy is in principle supportive - but implementation is the issue

Evidence B:EOI is not clear on the relevance or complementarity potential of the activities, including expected results.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Few and small - but this might be an opportunity to really do something (probably pilot) to bring the ITK+Insts that are there in Turkana as part of formalized IPLCs under County governnment support

Evidence B:The EOI is vague in its description of complementary activities and existing projects. This is partly due to the formatting adopted as opposed to sticking to the template.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 22/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 23/30

Average Total Score: 22.5/30



Performance of EoI 356 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: But there needs to be real focus - at present it is too much of a selection of activities of all sorts. what is the key outcome of the project? then how do the activities fit. For example: “Strengthen and support IPLC managed systems based on Turkana Clans who use and manage the area (for example from Kalakol to Turkwell River)” then this would create the space for the importance of many of the activities stated. it will also make it doable, and adaptable (for other areas in turkana and more broadly in the drylands

Evidence B:The proposed approach, judged from activities planned for implementation as well as expected results, is well aligned for the achievement of ICI’s overall objective. For example, it aims at scaling up IPLCs participation and decision making in the management of the rangelands and marine basins.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: Logic not clear - the 10 activity areas need to contribute to outcomes, otherwise it is just too random. Would benefit from have some ToC planning for what they really want to do.

The outcomes they have are intermediate - and really relate to capacity. So what is the capacity for??? - surely it is about Sus Man of Lake Turkana water and rangeland resources - that is the big outcome (and far too big for this proposal). This proposal could develop this for a certain geography of the lake/land (e.g. between Kalakol, Turkwell river and Lodwar - as an exampe)

Evidence B:Activities are clear and convincing, judging from results expected.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: At this stage over ambitious - needs context to an achievable outcome. then all the activities will contribute to something; as well as working towards empowerment of IPLC stakeholders

Evidence B:Juxtaposing activities proposed for implementation and the challenges identified such as loss of biodiversity and tribal conflicts, it is evident that their implementation would contribute significantly to the reduction of the challenges.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: will be much stronger if the project will be working in a specific geography - at present it covers a huge huge area - which will not be acheivable except at a very general level

Evidence B:The nature of activities proposed permits their full implementation within the proposed budget and time. They include for example having bio-cultural community protocols.


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: and relatively small scale - but could be important. I wonder to what extent could they get support from County (if not cash - could be technical or policy)

Evidence B:The nature of activities proposed permits their full implementation within the proposed budget and time. They include for example having bio-cultural community protocols.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: Over ambitious on scale - tackle a geography that is doable - Area between Kalakol, Turkwell river and Lodwar contains much important BD, relates to many different Institutions, and can demonstrate management control of e.g. Prosopis

Evidence B:The EOI envisages working on total of 250, 000 Ha under improved management. This is moderate, based on score suggestions above.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Too many indicators and they are too process focused. Get the Outcome right, then your key activities and have some key indicators; for example: Area under improved Doum Management - where measures will include Area, # of women, sales of baskets, #s trained

Evidence B:Additional Cultural and livelihoods results are clearly derived from the project. Accordingly, they are likely to contribution significantly to the project objectives.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: If there is a focus on an Outcome, this will help in coming to a realistic vision which at present is very unclear.

There is much past experience to draw on - e.g. Fishing and lake Ecology; participatory forest management; sustainable doum palm, prosopis etc. etc. - would be good to build on such experience

Evidence B:No clear and convincing explanation is advanced. For example, reliance is made on in-kind contributions by communities as well as future fund-raisers.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Articulated - BUT need to ensure that the outcome and activities will contribute to NBSAPs and NDC in real way

Evidence B:The EOI appears to be only remotely connected to the national priorities, suggesting that the proponent organization may not be sufficiently conversant on the same.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: The EoI proponent is all about gender and women leadership. Would do well to really articulate the importance of gender differentiated knowledge in Turkana (there is quite a bit of literature on this)

Evidence B:The EOI provides sufficient evidence on the proponent’s clear and robust approaches to gender mainstreaming.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: This could become highly demonstrated esp if the project invests in empowerment and capacity building of the IPLCs, Women and other stakeholders. It is good that the proponents of this EoI are Indigenous Turkana Ladies and this project will really help build their capacity and empower them

Evidence B:Overall, the proposed project demonstrates innovative approaches to solving challenges requiring agent actions.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 25/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 29/40

Average Total Score: 27/40



Performance of EoI 356 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: Fully IPLC - and this is important as for too long outsiders have told the Turkana what they must do - with some exceptions. In essence this is an empowerment project around a certain geography and will demonstrate the importance of Turkana knowledge and Institutions. At this point I would encourage the proposal to stay in Turkana county - perhaps with some awareness and capacity building in other parts

Evidence B:This is a fully IPLC composed and led organization as evident in the EOI. See for example the answer to question 24.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: A good deal of demonstrated leadership - esp in training, awareness and governance (and law) but not so much on community based NRM

Evidence B:This is an IPLC-lead organization with activities on ground. Accordingly, it is evident that it has demonstrable on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: Partners are parastatals - which is OK, but County government will be an important partner (as they are mostly Turkana people, some with good exp). They might want to think of some of the traditional insitutions in the area as “to be” partners

Evidence B:Partners’ roles are not defined. Compounding this, only technical organization are listed, not IPLCs’.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: have capacities in gender, rights, participation, comms and awareness - but will need capacity for sustainable NRM and restoration

Evidence B:Areas of expertise of staff members are not provided. However, based on activities/projects implemented in the past, it is evident that the organization has technical capacity. There is a need to follow up on profiles of staff.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: Bear in mind this organizations is an indigenous on based in the Turkana basin and focuses on local community action

Evidence B:The organization meets all criteria, including regular external audit of its accounts. Also the average annual budget is more than 1.5 Million $.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: NA/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: NA/2

Evidence A: none

Evidence B:The explanation is not convincing-experience is based on reading the safeguards online.



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 17/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 22/30

Average Total Score: 27/30



Performance of EoI 356 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)